41–50 of 1001 posts
As a pedestrian I'm not a fan of being an unwitting part of a private company's beta testing. Before this devolves into whatboutism vs the safety of human drivers, my opposition is to adding yet another unknown safety layer to walking down the street. Usually when private companies are developing products that could kill, drugs for example, it is on the company to exhaustively prove the safety and effectiveness befor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article you link to says there was more to it! The Cruise vehicle, after running over the woman, stopped on top of her with the rear axle/tires pinning her to the ground, trapping her there. And it just... sat there. I hesitate to believe that a human driver would do something like that. You could, however, argue that staying in place was the right thing to do; continuing to drive to get the woman out from under…
This is such a wild edge case though. So we think the vehicle should do what, keep driving, potentially causing more damage? It's highly situation specific, and I'd expect the emergency personal to make the judgement call on how to free the person (potentially by taking control of the vehicle, or other means).
Honestly, I don't think this tech will be able to ever be fully automated without controlling the environment as well (dedicated lanes). There's just too many variables you can't account for, and too much risk.
CA DMV statement [1] has some more information: Today’s suspensions are based on the following: 13 CCR §228.20 (b) (6) – Based upon the performance of the vehicles, the Department determines the manufacturer’s vehicles are not safe for the public’s operation. 13 CCR §228.20 (b) (3) – The manufacturer has misrepresented any information related to safety of the autonomous technology of its vehicles. 13 CCR §227.42 (b)…
How many surplus people will be killed by human drivers today, tomorrow, next year, and next decade because of this suspension I wonder? No one ever seems to consider them in these decisions[0]. [0]I can see myself not agreeing with the conclusions, but to not even see the question broached in these terms is maddening.
I'm disappointed to hear this news. So many people are killed by cars every year. We just take that for granted. Self-driving cars have the potential to drastically improve this and save many lives. I worry that these regulators are weighing the costs heavily while ignoring the benefits of innovation. That said, I don't have access to the data and I don't really know if Cruise has been acting inappropriately. I'm gla…
Cruise was pushing too hard and fast for where their stack is at and they seem to have some severe safety related bugs.
Ex [1]: The car randomly starts swerving rapidly across traffic lanes towards an occupied sidewalk.
Ex [2] (@1:31): The car doesn't stop for someone already in the crosswalk and nearly hits them.
[1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12640657/self-drivi...
[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/video/driving-taxis-hittin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a wild edge case though. So we think the vehicle should do what, keep driving, potentially causing more damage? It's highly situation specific, and I'd expect the emergency personal to make the judgement call on how to free the person (potentially by taking control of the vehicle, or other means).
Keeping autonomous vehicles on the road will result in thousands of edge cases, and without a clear safety benefit (as opposed to Level 1 systems) its better to stop everything and reconsider. Honestly, I don't think this tech will be able to ever be fully automated without controlling the environment as well (dedicated lanes). There's just too many variables you can't account for, and too much risk.
I'm not saying that means we should just put them on the road, consequences be damned, but I'm curious if there are alternative ways to prove them without risking bystanders' lives.
As a pedestrian I'm not a fan of being an unwitting part of a private company's beta testing. Before this devolves into whatboutism vs the safety of human drivers, my opposition is to adding yet another unknown safety layer to walking down the street. Usually when private companies are developing products that could kill, drugs for example, it is on the company to exhaustively prove the safety and effectiveness befor…
The whole point of AVs is that they are a safety layer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why so many people hate Tesla, but they aren't allowed to drive fully automated without a human monitoring them, so not the same situation.
There are videos of Tesla drivers sleeping on the driver's seat while FSD are running. How is that is monitoring?
Is there evidence that Cruise is more dangerous than a human driver?
A human driver at what percentile? I think AVs need to be better than p95 or so to be socially accepted.
If we can achieve that, the best in 100 or best in 1000 may not be far off.
According to Cruise's X(Twitter) account [0], the suspension seems to be related to an incident in which a human driver hit-and-run propelled a pedestrian in front of a Cruise AV and the Cruise vehicle couldn't avoid hitting the person. When that incident was first reported [1], it seemed like a situation where if it was a human driver in the Cruise vehicle, they wouldn't be found to be at any fault. However given th…
The article you link to says there was more to it! The Cruise vehicle, after running over the woman, stopped on top of her with the rear axle/tires pinning her to the ground, trapping her there. And it just... sat there. I hesitate to believe that a human driver would do something like that. You could, however, argue that staying in place was the right thing to do; continuing to drive to get the woman out from under…
So a pedestrian was crossing a crosswalk when they didn't have the green light. It doesn't really make sense why neither the human driver nor Cruise car slowed down in that case and kept driving normally. Both should have stopped despite having the green light.